Poll: Are Audiobooks Shameful?

[Silvanus]

Not shameful at all. Not one bit.

I don't tend to listen to them myself, but since Charles Dickens used to perform live readings of his books, and T.S. Eliot created recordings of his poetry, there are highly respected writers and poets that consider audio versions of their works to be a perfectly legitimate way of taking them in.

 

[Ratty]

Personally I find something extremely satisfying in cracking open yellow paged old books to sit down with a hot cup of tea and relax. When it comes to stories told through audio I prefer radio shows myself. But then that's an artform that died out in America around the early 1960s with the advent of television. But I don't see anything inherently wrong in consuming audiobooks, some people can probably imagine better when the story is told to them, some can imagine better when reading themselves. At the end of the day you're all just consuming a book for personal enjoyment, so what's the harm?

It's the fact that it's usually just one person reading the whole thing. Hearing someone try to do the voices of different characters, especially of the opposite gender, just takes me out of it. I mean, I get why they do it, because of the costs involved... but still. I really wish more of them were actually read more like a play, with different people at least voicing the main characters. More of a personal complaint than any sort of issue with all of audiobooks though.

Have you ever tried radio shows/audio plays? They were equivalent to television in popularity and influence in the US from about the 1930s until the 1950s when actual television supplanted it. But such programs are still being made in the UK and some other places.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

So, over the past few weeks, I've "read" 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Slaughterhouse Five, the first two Foundation books, The Thing on the Doorstep, Shadow Over Innsmouth and several trashy Horus Heresy novels.

By "read", I mean listened to.

Whenever I discuss these novels with someone whose opinion of me I care about, I make sure not to specify that I consumed them in audio form.

Am I being an overly self-conscious pejorative, or should I just go commit Sudoku right now?

You should definitely go commit Sudoku, it's fun and good for the brain.

As for the audiobooks, heck no! Audiobooks are great, I listen to them on my drive to work and when I work out, it's a phenomenal way to learn a lot and make efficient use of your time. Interesting tidbit, when polled, 'listening to audiobooks on the way to work' was something that enormous amounts of wealthy people said they did as a habit. Like I said, it's a great way to learn new stuff on the go.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Anyone who tells you that an audiobook is "shameful" or that reading the book is the only "proper" way to experience a story is an elitist jerk.
[small]Note: I don't think the following person is an elitist jerk; I'm just responding to his comment.[/small]

I also think that it probably isn't the way the artist intended for you to experience their work, it's like looking at a photo of the Mona Lisa.

So are you saying that if I never get to go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, I should never get to see it at all? These days spare time can be a luxury for some, and at least attempting to become exposed to art in its myraid forms should be celebrated, not scorned.

 

[llamastorm.games]

I LOVE audio-books and feel absolutely no shame in it. I've read my fair share of books and probably another half dozen peoples fair share of books in the last 20 years and I just don't have time with work and everything else to dedicate that many hours to something when I can get the same effect from listening to them and still being able to do something else.
Much better than listening to music on my phone when at work or on the bus/train
Keeps my mind engaged and I find you take a lot more of the story in as it is being read to you at an even pace clearly by "usually" an experienced narrator.

The only problem is I go through them so quickly and as a result I've been re-listening to a few books from my teens as I've already listened to Lord Of The Rings and the full Temperance Brennan series in the past few months so I've been on Artemis Fowl (as I have them on my external) and I must say they are exceptionally well written (especially compared to that tripe by Poalini - Eragon and sequels) and even though they're a young teen fiction series they've been every bit as brilliant as I thought there were when I was 15 and I've been enjoying them immensely but sadly in 2 weeks I've listened to 7 of them.

If anyone cares I do heartily recommend the Mogworld audio-book read by Yahtzee himself although maybe played at 1.25-1.5x normal speed as his narration can be a bit slow.

 

[ninjaRiv]

It's not shameful, no. Anyone who says it IS shameful is an idiot and should feel bad about themselves. Some people don't have the time to sit and read. Personally, I don't have the attention span to sit and read word after word. I'll often give up and go do something else. But, back when I could afford a subscription to Audible, I enjoyed listening to books while walking r waiting for a bus.

 

[synobal]

I listen to audiobooks while I work. I also listen to them to enjoy books at a slower pace. I always read exceptionally quick so if I know the book is going to be really good I get it in audio form and really enjoy it.

IF anyone tried to mock me for listening to books instead of just reading them I'd just laugh in their face. I'm an avid reader hitting at least 120 to 150 books a year. I'd simply not be able to manage that with out the convenience of audiobooks.

 

[frizzlebyte]

My problem with audiobooks is that I tend to zone out, not listening to the thing. I tend to comprehend books better when they are in front of my face. I can go back and refer to earlier parts of the book, in case I missed something on the first pass.

Plus, it just feels wrong, somehow, to listen to a book. I don't hold it against anyone if they listen to audiobooks, but I just can't do it, myself.

EDIT:

I'm an avid reader hitting at least 120 to 150 books a year. I'd simply not be able to manage that with out the convenience of audiobooks.

This is the best defense of audiobooks I can think of. Good work, synobal! I'd never get that many books in a year. I do well to crack 10 to 15.

 

[St0ckP4rts]

Mankind has launched a piece of metal over 19 million kilometers away from the Earth and it's still sending back a signal, there are better things to think about then worrying about how overs perceive your consumption of literature.
There are people out there who will judge you for listening to audio books, people are weird, heck not to be insulting but you're a bit weird too for asking this on a forum.

 

[Dimitriov]

I listen to audiobooks while I work. I also listen to them to enjoy books at a slower pace. I always read exceptionally quick so if I know the book is going to be really good I get it in audio form and really enjoy it.

IF anyone tried to mock me for listening to books instead of just reading them I'd just laugh in their face. I'm an avid reader hitting at least 120 to 150 books a year. I'd simply not be able to manage that with out the convenience of audiobooks.

Uh, if reading books is too fast, so you listen to them in audio form (which is slower) to savour them, then why can you only "read" that many books in a year because of audio books. That doesn't make any sense...

So, over the past few weeks, I've "read" 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, Slaughterhouse Five, the first two Foundation books, The Thing on the Doorstep, Shadow Over Innsmouth and several trashy Horus Heresy novels.

By "read", I mean listened to.

Whenever I discuss these novels with someone whose opinion of me I care about, I make sure not to specify that I consumed them in audio form.

Am I being an overly self-conscious pejorative, or should I just go commit Sudoku right now?

OT: I voted yes in your poll, but not because listening to audio books is shameful. But rather because it is definitely a different experience. In the original post you said that you specify that you listened to a book rather than actually read it, and I do think that is a valid distinction to make.

Reading is not simply about absorbing the information and data within a book, it is very much an experience based on the interaction with the medium.

 

[Lex Darko]

The ASoIaF audio books done by Roy Dotrice are so good. And I've never mispronounced Baratheon as Bara-theon.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Your choice in how you consume books is bad and you should feel bad! SUCH SHAME!

...

/sarcasm

While I personally enjoy reading the book a lot more than listening to it (I find it much more immersive to read), I do listen to books as well. I like to listen to audio books while walking and driving. I don't usually listen to novels though. I don't have my full attention devoted to the listening (and I shouldn't when I'm driving) so I find that I miss things when I listen to novels. I don't find it to be a very big deal if I miss some information when listening to something other than a novel.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I don't personally listen to them because I don't pay as much attention to the story if I'm doing something else while listening to the audiobook, and eventually can't follow anymore. But if it works for you, go right ahead. Anybody that judges you is an asshole.

 

[synobal]

I listen to audiobooks while I work. I also listen to them to enjoy books at a slower pace. I always read exceptionally quick so if I know the book is going to be really good I get it in audio form and really enjoy it.

IF anyone tried to mock me for listening to books instead of just reading them I'd just laugh in their face. I'm an avid reader hitting at least 120 to 150 books a year. I'd simply not be able to manage that with out the convenience of audiobooks.

Uh, if reading books is too fast, so you listen to them in audio form (which is slower) to savour them, then why can you only "read" that many books in a year because of audio books. That doesn't make any sense...

Actually I'd say it makes perfect sense. I read a lot of books and since audio books enables me to utilize more of my time reading than I'd otherwise be able to read I get a net positive gain despite the fact audio books take longer because I'm using a higher percentage of my time reading.

 

[Musette]

I never really cared about if people used audiobooks or not. Sometimes, it's nice to have something with a consistent pace to keep you focused on a story, and for me, they were super useful for alleviating my intense boredom while I was recovering from an eye surgery and couldn't read, watch TV, play video games, go on the Internet or even really spend time outside at all. My choices at the time were to listen to music, focus on an audiobook, find people actually willing to talk on the phone, or convince people to visit me. The audiobooks definitely helped keep me from going insane with boredom at the time.

 

[Ratty]

So are you saying that if I never get to go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, I should never get to see it at all? These days spare time can be a luxury for some, and at least attempting to become exposed to art in its myraid forms should be celebrated, not scorned.

I am not saying that, I'm just saying you aren't getting the full experience. Of course one with little time should probably see the Mona Lisa as an Internet picture, but one has only actually "seen" the Mona Lisa when he has seen the painting firsthand.

You could extend that argument to anything. "You haven't actually SEEN that movie unless you've seen it on a 35mm master print." "This book was written for hardback, you've only read it in reformatted paperback!" You could actually argue with this logic that no one has "seen" the "real" Mona Lisa in hundreds of years because the colors have changed and the picture has faded significantly over time. So in this case a better preserved copy which it is now believed was made by one of Da Vinci's students while he was still alive might be a much better representation of Da Vinci's original vision than the actual painting is now http://twentytwowords.com/copy-of-the-mona-lisa-discovered-to-be-by-a-student-of-da-vinci/

Also having the book read to you isn't shorter than reading it yourself (unless you are dyslectic) so your argument about limited spare time doesn't hold water.

*dyslexic
And you're wrong. Most people can read pretty fast, but the rate at which they're able to comprehend and absorb a story will vary. I've no doubt that a lot of people can take in a story from audio much more quickly and in a more relaxed and enjoyable manner. Especially when you take things like eyesight into consideration.

 

[RoonMian]

To each their own... If you enjoy that more then do it. I personally would take twice as long for each book, ain't nobody got time for dat.

 

[lunavixen]

No, there's no shame in Audiobooks, a lot of them are worse than their printed counterparts because they don't get the right orator for them, but the good ones are quite nice for a change, you can listen to them while doing other things or if you're unable to read for some reason.

EDIT: The other half of my post got eaten

I don't listen to a lot of audiobooks, but I read a lot, possibly a litle too much, I can (and generally do) read about 150 or so books a year, and that's radically scaled back from how many I used to read in school per year (I read about 900 books or so in year 6, and that's not a concrete number, the librarian thinks it was actually higher, my average in school was about 500 books a year).

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I don't believe I've ever actually listened to an audiobook.

Something about consuming literature that way just seems...wrong...and sort of defeats the purpose of reading. To me, anyway.

There's certainly no shame in audiobooks, but, frankly, you didn't actually "read" anything. >.>